Talk:Recreation and Amusement Association

Rewrite

This whole page needs a re-write; it's just not written very well. The grammar is clunky, the capitalization is random, and the concept is not clearly put forth. 76.186.74.106 06:36, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

I took out the dubious citations

Someone put a citation to Amino Yoshihiko on SCAP rape. Amino is a medieval historian (arguably one of Japan's most famous), and the book cited is on medieval history. Nothing to do on SCAP. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Konamaiki (talk • contribs) 01:19, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

"Special Comfort Facility Association" & Japanese "Comfort women"

I looked at this article and found these two terms which do not belong. I provide the following reasons:

• The lead said that the translation of the "Recreation and Amusement Association" is "more literally" the "Special Comfort Facility Association".
  • "More literally"? This is a ridiculous phrase, and unnecessary.
  • One editor's opinion on what is a better translation is irrelevant, as there is an "official euphemism". If there was no "official" term, it would be acceptable to provide alternate translations beside the one most commonly known in English, but that is not the case. An editor added the bit of Original Research, and placed it at each point the "RAA" was mentioned. So I removed all cases of the OR translation.
• The term "comfort women" has a specific meaning, and using it here is OR, and betrays a POV.
  • The term "comfort women" denotes the women of occupied Asian countries who were recruited, and usually duped or forced, into sexual slavery.
  • It is well-documented that the Japanese women in the RAA were recruited and hired, sometimes with some initial flowery talk about patriotism, but the truth always came up before the job. All of these women, so far as I have ever read, went into this job voluntarily. And they were paid. As badly as I might feel for them, this is quite different from the circumstances of the real "comfort women" elsewhere.
  • There is no source that states that the Japanese prostitutes were called "comfort women" in Japan.
  • I have removed all mention of the phrase "comfort women" in the text.

I have left the listing for "Comfort women" in the See also section, as it seems relevant for inclusion. Boneyard90 (talk) 13:11, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

A few comments:

• I agree that the official term should be used (since it is the term formally used in English, after all). But "Special Comfort Facility Association" is a word-for-word translation of the Japanese name. Per WP:NOR, faithful translations into English are not OR. I think mention of the literal meaning of the Japanese name is worth inclusion in the article, given how different it is from the English. That said, once is enough. Mentioning it every time is pushing a POV.
• Is the term "comfort women" inherently POV? Because while I haven't looked yet, I would be shocked if the Japanese officials of the time didn't use the term for the Japanese women since they were already using the euphemism "comfort facility" for the brothels. Again, if it's shown the term was used a brief mention would be enough (with mention of differences in recruitment, working conditions, etc.).
• I agree that the references to Okinawa can go barring a good source linking the subjects.

I'll add this subject to my list of things to look into. Cckerberos (talk) 15:39, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for engaging in discussion. On your first point: I can agree. I would add something like, "an alternative translation", and as you said, once is enough.

- On the second, I would think yes, the term "comfort women" is well known enough among those who study military history and women's issues that it is an emotionally laden term. And as far as I have read, among secondary sources and personal accounts, the Japanese recruitment was very much not an act of coercion. There were interviews, there were women who signed up for the money, to feed their families, and a surprising proportion listed "curiosity" and other personal reasons. The job was put in terms of patriotism, a voluntary sacrifice on their part to preempt the possibility of rape among many other women. See Embracing Defeat, by J. Dower, p.127.

-However, even if the RAA coerced these women, I would think a reliable source would be needed to show that these women were called or compared to other "comfort women". Otherwise, it would be a violation of WP:SYNTH. Boneyard90 (talk) 16:08, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Yes, the only way I'm familiar with the RAA is from Dower's book. But he doesn't get into that many specifics and I'm not quite convinced that everything was as voluntary as he describes. This was a time of starvation and poor families still sold daughters into pseudo-slavery at brothels, IIRC. But I'll grab some more comprehensive studies the next time I'm at the library. Cckerberos (talk) 03:56, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

The term 'comfort women' is, as far as I'm aware, generally only applied to the women who were forced to work as prostitutes by the Japanese Army during the World War II era. The use of it in this context appears to be an attempt to push the POV that the western Allied forces committed similar crimes to the Axis forces, which is a key element of the the modern far-right view of World War II, but not accepted by the vast majority of historians. Nick-D (talk) 07:46, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

As it happens, I just mentioned this paper (published as Modern-Day Comfort Women: The U.S. Military, Transnational Crime, and the Trafficking of Women, Violence Against Women September 2007 13: 901-922 here and elsewhere) in a discussion at Talk:Comfort women#Opening paragraph. The paper says, in part, "several sources say that some of the original 'comfort women' used by the Japanese army were in turn used by U.S. troops following the defeat of Japan (Kim, 1997). The experiences of the women are similar; except now, the U.S. troops refer to them by other euphemistic and derogatory terms, such as 'guest relations officer,' 'bar girls,' 'hostesses,' 'entertainers,' and 'juicy girls' (Kim, 1997; Donato, 2002; Demick, 2002." The paper contains full cites for those sources. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 08:08, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Interesting, and adds a new element to the history of the period, but not so relevant here. You quote the paper saying that US troops were using the same Korean, Chinese, and Taiwanese women. This article is about Japanese women recruited to be prostitutes. So, not seeing how it helps the present situation. Boneyard90 (talk) 08:14, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Yes. understood. No argument. In the interim, I found a copy of the (Kim, 1997) paper. I don't have the link handy but, as I recall it, it is in Korean and it is very specific to Korea. Still, as background among editors, my guess would be that postwar behavior of US military personnel and of postwar civil administrators in Japan and Korea would not have differed much between them. As a sidebar note, I spent the years of '61, '84 and '85 in Korea and '64-'72 in Vietnam. I have some firsthand knowledge about this general situation which is unciteable as WP:OR here. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 12:36, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Using "comfort women" in this article is not OR. RS are [1]and [2]. In the first link women were described as "comfort women" and in the second link RAA was referred as comfort station. See also Occupation of Japan#Rape and Rape during the occupation of Japan#Public fear and Recreation and Amusement Association. It's a recent English definition/interpretation that the word is only applied to the women who were forced to work as prostitutes by the Japanese Army during the World War II era. A Korean newspaper used the term in 1957. See this file. Oda Mari (talk) 08:53, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

As mentioned above, I'm fairly sure that the Japanese used the term "comfort women" for the prostitutes. But those links only show that the women are referred to as "comfort women" by modern Japanese, not that contemporary Japanese officials used the term. Normally I'd say that the modern usage and the sources showing contemporary use of the terms "comfort station" and "comfort facilities" was enough, but I'd like something more definitive because of the POV concern. Cckerberos (talk) 11:14, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Okay, Michael Molasky's The American Occupation of Japan and Okinawa: Literature and Memory mentions a contemporary Tokyo police directive "calling for the establishment of a 'comfort woman system'"[3] for Allied troops. Cckerberos (talk) 11:54, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Ok, it seems there are some good sources. However, if someone adds this information, it should be more than a lead mention "...or 'comfort women' (ref)". If the reasons for the contemporaneous usage and explanations that are appropriate and relevant to inclusion are not provided, we'll be right back here discussing this again, with one or more editors who will know the term only by its association in the Japanese-occupied territories. For example, was the term ianfu a euphemism throughout Japanese society for all prostitutes? Or was it only in military/government circles? And more importantly, was it a term for any prostitute, or just those that catered to the military? (And would clientele/assailants be Japanese military, or any military?) These are the questions that would explain the nuance of the term, and provide context that would justify why the emotionally-charged term "comfort women" would be in this article. Boneyard90 (talk) 15:24, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

The definition in ja is [4]. The page only says about the women in WW2, but the native speakers think the RAA women were comfort women too as you saw the first link I provided. The term ianfu is not for any prostitutes, but for those that catered to the military. The term was used in Korean war. I think these pages in en are helpful. [5], [6], and [7]. Oda Mari (talk) 16:39, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Mari- I have trouble with the reliability of some of your sources. #1 is an article from the Shimbun Akahata, the main Communist paper in Japan, and so one that has its own political agenda. The last two look like older reflections of Wikipedia. #2 is government minutes of Diet committee proceedings I believe, and looks legitimate for a view of contemporary (present, now) views on the issue of postwar RAA prostitution. None of these connect the term "ianfu" with the RAA prostitutes during 1945-46. If there is a section called "Contemporary views", I'd be more comfortable with this aspect of information. If we're saying the RAA women were ianfu, then we're violating OR, or at best WP:SYNTH. Boneyard90 (talk) 18:44, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

I guess here's the thing: we know that the RAA was based on Japan's wartime activities and used the same "comfort" euphemism for the brothels. It's easy to come up with modern Japanese sources referring to the prostitutes as "comfort women". It's easy to come up with English language sources referring to them as "comfort women". Based on all that, it's hard for me to view using the term here as either OR or SYNTH, so long as care is taken to specify the important differences between the conditions. Cckerberos (talk) 21:20, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Found this quote from a contemporary American official on the RAA: "It is the belief of our informants, however, that in urban districts the practice of enslaving girls, while much less prevalent than in the past, still exists." [8] Cckerberos (talk) 21:24, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

To Cckerberos: Your newest source rides the line WP:YESPOV ("Avoid stating opinions as facts."), but it provides a good counterpoint to the assertion that all the RAA prostitutes were recruited volunteers.

I understand that the Japanese gov't/military based the RAA on their own wartime expectations and practices. I have trouble with the wartime nationalists verbally equating the Japanese girls' noble "sacrifice" with the imposed sex-slavery of the races they looked down on. And I admit that now, we can look back on that time and say, yup, it all looks the same, forced servitude of some kind; which I'm ok with in a retrospective section. But, were the Japanese women called ianfu at the time? I want to be careful we don't cross a line. There's the matter of history, but it seems that the "employment conditions" between the Korean comfort women and the Japanese RAA women were vastly different. Boneyard90 (talk) 22:22, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

I'll know tomorrow since I'm grabbing some books in English and Japanese which will hopefully have some contemporary quotes. Whether the specific word ianfu appears will depend on the sources of the quotes, though, as my understanding is that that's popular shorthand abbreviated from longer, more formal terms like gun ianjo jugyo-fu ("women employed at military comfort stations") which is what appear in official documents. But we'll see. Cckerberos (talk) 03:43, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

This[9] has a quote from the 1945 papers of an Ibaraki police chief concerning the establishment of the local RAA brothel: "The Tokko under Lt. Suginami have no suitable candidates for comfort women so they've been busy trying to convince women. They wanted 20, but no one was interested so they finally came up with only 6." Cckerberos (talk) 04:02, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

The key issue here seems to me to be the modern English language usage of the term 'comfort women', and not whatever the Japanese language term was used back in 1945/46. Nick-D (talk) 07:56, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Not counting English-language works by Japanese authors or English translations of Japanese works, I've found 2 journal articles [10][11] and 3 books[12][13][14] which cover with the RAA in any depth (more than a paragraph). Of those, 1 of the articles and the 2 of books use the term "comfort women" for the RAA prostitutes. From that, I think it'd be fair to say that use of the term is common but not universal. Cckerberos (talk) 22:53, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

I commend your perspicacity, it must not have been easy to find these. Please excuse the length of my commentary, but here are the following issues I have with these sources:

• Ref.#10: In the 2nd paragraph, the author makes a clear distinction between the "sexual 'comforters' (ianfu) during World War II and the [RAA] after the war". Lie talks about these as two separate categories of sex workers.
• Ref.#11: No mention of RAA women as "comfort women".
• Ref.#12: Molasky states: "Recent publications [on RAA research] have expanded the geographical under discussion and drawn on fresh revelations about Japan's wartime 'comfort woman system' to situate the RAA within a broader context. Some studies have suggested that the wartime and postwar 'comfort woman systems' should be considered together with Japan's exploitation of karayuki-san earlier in this century." (p.110). On the same page, he mentions a police station that uses the term, one that was already mentioned earlier in discussion. Molasky says that these three separate categories of women--the ianfu, RAA women, and the karayuki-san--are being grouped under the same term to discuss the issue of war-related sex-work and Japan; it seems he, or his fellow researcher, use the term "comfort women" as a term of convenience, probably because it's the only distinctive English term, and/or because of its shock-value, but not because either the RAA women or the karayuki-san were called ianfu to any appreciable extent.
• Ref.#13:I'm seeing "comfort stations", but not "comfort women", except where the author contrasts the living conditions of the two.
• Ref.#14: Dower's book has been discussed above, and cited in the article.

So, except for where Molasky wants to group all war-related sex workers under one category, a very post-post-war academic view, there is almost no evidence to equate the term "comfort women" with the RAA prostitutes, except the term "comfort station" and the one police memo, who may have been using terminology picked up in his own personal experiences. I would think we can safely say that "some modern scholars compare RAA women with the more familiar 'comfort women', but this is only in the broader context of academic research on wartime attitudes among Japanese military personnel towards sex and sex workers, and was not a widespread term used in reference to the women employed by the RAA". And then the article should refrain from using the term "comfort women" in reference to the RAA women throughout the rest of the article. Boneyard90 (talk) 00:58, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

In response:

• Ref.10: Yes, but I don't think anyone is suggesting that the wartime and postwar Japanese state prostitution systems were not distinct. In any case, Lie repeatedly uses the term "ianfu" with regard to the RAA prostitutes in the article. For example, on page 258 (behind a paywall, unfortunately) he says "the vast majority of the 55,000 ianfu went straight to work in akasen after the RAA was disbanded."
• Ref.11: Yes, I acknowledged that only 1 of the 2 journals used the term.
• Ref.12: I was replying to Nick-D's question about modern usage of the term in English rather than the issue of usage in 1945/6. Molasky makes multiple references to the RAA being a "postwar 'comfort woman' system". So I think he qualifies as an example of modern English-language usage of the term. As far as contemporary usage goes, I have already provided two sources given above: the Tokyo directive mentioned by Molasky and the Ibaraki police chief's quote (Ref. 9). Given the former was an official government order, I think it's fairly strong evidence. And I don't think that given that context the police chief's quote can be dismissed as being unique to him. Frankly, the idea that the Japanese wouldn't use the term seems pretty unlikely. They make use of the terms "comfort stations" and "comfort facilities" but suddenly decide to drop the euphemism when it comes to the women?
• Ref.13: Again, the fact that she refers to RAA prostitutes as "Japanese comfort women" counts as a modern English-language researcher using the term.

No, I don't think we can safely say that. Those modern scholars don't "compare" the RAA prostitutes to "comfort women", they call them "comfort women" and they're not only talking about a broad wartime context. Molasky's book deals solely with the Occupation. And we certainly can't make a sweeping statement about contemporary usage of the term without at least something to back it up. We have two sources showing it being used and I'll probably find more now that I have Japanese language studies at hand. On the other side, I don't think we have anything saying the term wasn't used. Look, I don't want anyone to read the article and come away with the misunderstanding that postwar Japan was wartime China as far as state prostitution went. But that statement's going too far the other way. Cckerberos (talk) 02:33, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

If they were not called ianfu, what were they called in ja? Oda Mari (talk) 05:04, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

To Mari: That, I don't know, and haven't seen. Perhaps inbaifu, joro, baishunfu, or one of the many other terms? Good question.

To Cc:That's probably my main concern, is that readers will come away thinking they were the same, when we have solid references that say that for the most part, the needs of the RAA women were taken care of (aside from the degradation of working as a prostitute...) with meals, shelter, 50% of a client's payment, etc. while the Asian ianfu received none of that and treatment was alot harsher. Because of that difference in treatment, I'd worry that an unqualified comparison, equating RAA with comfort women, would be seen as quite offensive to the original "comfort women", or (more likely) their descendants & countrymen, who (from all accounts) could rightly say that the RAA women didn't face nearly the reported degree of degradation, servitude, and physical abuse faced by the comfort women of Korea & China. Boneyard90 (talk) 09:51, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

With the disclaimer that I have not yet read much on the RAA beyond Dower's description (so my thoughts may change), my current thought is that once the article has been expanded a section called something like terminology could be placed in the beginning with something along the lines of "Because the RAA system was inspired by Japanese officials' wartime experiences, its structure and terminology were based on the familiar wartime comfort women system. Brothels were referred to with the euphemisms "comfort stations" and "comfort facilities", and prostitutes were referred to as "comfort women". Because of this, many English-language and Japanese scholars of the RAA continue to use those terms in their research. The recruitment methods used and conditions facing women operating within the two systems were very different, however, and it is important to not conflate the two." Then later sections on recruitment and working conditions could further underscore the differences. Within the article itself, the terms prostitutes or just "the women" would be used, except when quoting from primary sources or scholars who use the term "comfort women". Similar to the usage of the term "concentration camp" in the Japanese American Internment article, in other words, since that's the closest example I can think of. Cckerberos (talk) 14:36, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Exactly my thought. I like it. Ok, if that's the direction you/we plan to go with this article, you have my support. Boneyard90 (talk) 15:42, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

I found these. [15], [16], and [17]. What do you think? Oda Mari (talk) 15:52, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Oops! The first link is used as ref in the article. But they are not comfort women? I'm afraid removing the term from the article seems whitewashing. Oda Mari (talk) 16:02, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

I don't think it's whitewashing if the term is acknowledged but care is taken when using it to make sure it's not misunderstood. In any case, I now have 6 books (both English and Japanese) discussing the RAA and hope to do a full expansion and rewrite of the article within the next few days (unless someone else wants to). So it might be better to wait until I do that, then see if changes still need to be made. Cckerberos (talk) 18:06, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Expansion

I finished my rewrite/expansion of the article. It could still use a little work, since I don't think it flows as well as it should, but it's good enough for now. Let me know if there are any concerns or if you think any sections need expansion. Cckerberos (talk) 05:21, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

That is an impressive re-write. I might make some minor adjustments, to syntax or punctuation, if you don't mind, but the content looks solid. Great job. Boneyard90 (talk) 08:19, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. Feel free, of course. I was pretty tired when I finished it, so I'm sure there are things that need to be corrected. Cckerberos (talk) 17:33, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Post-RAA US military culture re Japanese women

This doesn't really relate to this article topic, but I thought it might be appropriate to mention it to the community of editors interested in this topic area. Prompted by a recent edit here popping up on my watchlist, I did a bit of googling which led me to this. I recall seeing copies of some of these and some similar publications in USAF Base Exchanges in Japan in the mid 1960s. As I've said, I don't think this fits here, but it might fit in some other article in this general topical area. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 12:39, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Working Conditions Change Explanation

Since my editing of Syngmung's additions were largely reverted, I figured I'd explain my rationale here. To me, the wording "The charge to the American soldiers was eight cents, and that included a bottle of beer. Women received half this charge, and the house received the half." seemed redundant as the same paragraph already mentioned that the charge was 100 yen of which the women received 50. The new version is better at reducing the redundancy, but is misleading because it removes mention of the 100 yen and implies that soldier paid 8 cents. The US soldiers paid in yen they received on base in order to restrict access of the Japanese population to foreign currency (this was before the introduction of the military yen scrip in the summer of 1946). I also didn't see the point of "On the first day, one woman had 47 American customers and got almost 2 dollars for herself" since the paragraph already mentions that each woman saw 15-60 clients a day; the mentioned women's experience doesn't seem to be unusual. The 2 dollars is just the prior mentioned 4 cents x 47 ($1.88). Cckerberos (talk) 06:20, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

The charge contained a bottle of beer is detail imformation. If you know the a bottle of beer price at the time, it will provide more detail imformation. How many GI have been dealed by women in a day is important thing, which help us to know their working conditions and earning.--Syngmung (talk) 07:46, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

That's a fair point about the beer bottle and it should be worked back in. I wish I knew what Kristof's source was for the 8 cent conversion, though. I agree with you that the number of soldiers a woman had to deal with each day is important and shows their working conditions. But since the article mentions that each woman "had between 15 and 60 clients per day", that information is already there. Cckerberos (talk) 12:28, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

The woman earned 2 dollars, your contents could not explain the case. There are some sources I dont want but I can also say there is the contents by NYT, and which is more important than yours, so yours is not needed. But there are differece between two sources, so I think both contents should be writen.--Syngmung (talk) 13:23, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

I agree with the reduction in redundancy. If the average rate of clients per woman per day is stated, then pointing out a specific case later in the article is unnecessary, and seems to be playing up the shock value. Both sources can be cited at the first mention of client rate and earnings. Boneyard90 (talk) 14:02, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Is "between 15 and 60 clients per day" average? Both sources can only mention only the one soldier charge.--Syngmung (talk) 16:11, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

The text says "usually", and the sentence cites three sources. If that is the "usual" rate of clients/day, I am satisfied that "usual", in the descriptive or colloquial sense, is synonymous with "average", which was what I said in my comment. Not sure what the issue or question is. Boneyard90 (talk) 16:42, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

We can get average charge from some sources, but not average dealing numbers. NYT do not provide the average numbers. 47 men dealt woman case should be written.--Syngmung (talk) 12:36, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

There is no difference in sources, since the 47 soldiers mentioned by Kristof falls within the range given in the other source. The range is actually better, because it gives us an idea of what things were like for all the women rather than for one individual. We know that some women served even more than 47 soldiers, for example. Which of the sources already in the article do you not like? Shirakawa's book isn't great, but the rest are academic publications. Cckerberos (talk) 12:59, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

My recent reverts

I've just made a couple of edits reverting what I think is POV pushing by Koreationbuster (talk · contribs):

• I made this revert as most of the material wasn't relevant to this article, and the inflammatory claim that the Japanese were aware of the "fact" of American soldiers committing rapes wasn't in one of the sources it's attributed to - Dower 1999 actually says that the RARA was formed as the Japanese expected the American occupiers to behave as their own forces had (see page 124). The 'examples' the Japanese were supposedly aware of is a shopping list from other articles (and see Talk:Battle of Okinawa#10,000 rapes in three months for the major problems with the figure used for rapes in this battle - in short the historian who developed this figure regarded it as so unreliable that he wouldn't put his name to it).
• I also made this revert to remove biased wording (including the bolding of negative material about US troops) and removal of some cited content. Nick-D (talk) 11:20, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

I remember seeing a convincing rebuttal of the "1,336 rapes in Kanagawa in the first 10 days" statistic which explained that it's a misreading of a document saying that there were 1,336 crimes total (not just rape) committed by GIs in the first 10 days. I'll try to find where I saw that, though it's irrelevant in any case; the Japanese started planning the RAA well before any Allied troops hit their shores so it couldn't have been a reaction to any crimes they committed. Cckerberos (talk) 13:45, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

•  Comment: Millions Germans were raped before the Japanese surrender. In Korea, Okinawa and Manchuria, women had already been raped by Allied forces. Thus they created RAA before the Allied landing. Allied soldiers have been using prostitutes in korea till now.--Syngmung (talk) 17:05, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Would the Japanese government in August 1945 have known about those rapes? In any case, all of the sources I've seen (in both English and Japanese) make the same argument that Dower did: that they based their expectations on Allied behavior on their experiences with their own troops. I haven't seen any evidence that they were motivated by news of Allied crimes in other occupied areas. Cckerberos (talk) 17:24, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

•  Comment: In what some see as their comfort women, they must have also consider their comfort women systems. I think too. Japanese in German were under the arrest after the fall of Berlin. but the countless rapes were occurred before the fall of Berlin. Korea, Manchu and Okinawa are same. If I found the rape reports before the Allied landing of Japan, I would improve the article. OK?--Syngmung (talk) 17:40, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes, if you find information showing that the Japanese government was aware of Allied rapes elsewhere and that that was one of the reasons for the RAA, I think that should be added. I think it will be difficult to find, though. Tanaka Yuki, whose book is the most detailed books I found on the RAA, is very critical of the conduct of Allied soldiers, especially in Korea and Okinawa. I think that if there was a link between those acts and Japanese government policy he definitely would have included it in the book. Cckerberos (talk) 06:05, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Agreed, but if any author does actually state this, the views of other historians who believe otherwise should, of course, remain in the article per WP:NPOV. Nick-D (talk) 08:08, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

I've also just reverted edits by Syngmung (talk · contribs) which added a number of inflamatory claims referenced to the 'China Internet Information Center', which according to its 'about us' page at http://www.china.org.cn/2009-09/28/content_18620394.htm is a Chinese Government information website. This obviously doesn't qualify as a reliable source for anything, and especially not such inflammatory material (see also WP:HISTRS for the kind of referencing which is appropriate for articles on historic topics). Nick-D (talk) 10:06, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

When have wikipedia started censorship against China?--Syngmung (talk) 10:18, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

• It's not just that it's Chinese. It's an anonymous piece that doesn't make any references to sources, so it's impossible to check anything it says. That's bad enough, but it also contradicts reliable academic sources. 90% of prostitutes and occupation soldiers were infected with STDs? That's a staggering claim that needs more than an anonymous Chinese government website behind it.
• I'm also removing the mention of the "sexual dike" in the Background section. There's nothing objectionable about it, but it's not background material since it has to do with the actual establishment of the RAA. I'd normally move it, but it's also a rephrase translation of the "breakwater" language in the RAA oath. Since we already quote that part of the oath in the Establishment section, there's no need to have it a second time. Cckerberos (talk) 11:41, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
•  Comment: Surprising comments, I edited the texts souced from the chinese governmental web, but you critisized as the chinese governmental texts have no source. I'm not both American and Chinese nationalist, so I see Stars and Stripes (newspaper) and China Internet Information Center same value. Are only China Internet Information Center's texts needed sources? Furthermore, You also removed contents sourced by New York Times. It seems not good acts.--Syngmung (talk) 12:21, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

• I'm not sure why you mention Stars and Stripes, since it isn't used in the article, but there are some differences between it and the CIIC. Although both are owned by governments, Stars and Stripes has measures in place to try to ensure that it has an independent editorial policy. But even so, its association with the military is something that should be kept in mind since, as with any source, it's important to know what agenda if any was behind it.
• Not only CIIC reports need sources. Newspaper articles are generally less reliable than academic texts by reputable authors because they are usually written by non-specialists for the general public (and, in my experience, often contain errors and simplifications). So when, as in this case, a newspaper article contradicts an academic source, caution needs to be used. Journalist accounts are good because they're convenient and easy to understand, but shouldn't be relied upon when we have better sources available as we do for this article.
• I gave the reason for the removal of the NYT material above: it repeated information already in the article. BTW, the caution I mentioned above goes for the NYT as well. In this case, we know who the author is (Nicholas D. Kristof) and know that he is not a specialist on the RAA or related topics. So we need to keep that in mind (though the information in his article does match the academic accounts I've read). Cckerberos (talk) 15:30, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

• There is Independent policy or not, it's no sense. Both of them are not governmental official statesment, it is same. Reports have some governmental reflection or not, it no relation to the source used in wikipedia. According to your logic, all of sources from china do not pass your censorship.
• What do academic sources deny the CIIC source? You dont bring the source. Thus, there is no need to mention about academic ones. And CIIC is owned by Government, so the CIIC reports have more reliable source than unknown millions of minor journalists reports.
• Your removal reasons do not make sense. Not the same copy repeats, you moved much contents. This page have the special rule by Cckerberos. NYT reporter is not academic specialist, yes, he is a journalist. You are self denying journalistic soruces. CIIC and NYT sources show us many same contents, thus CIIC contents have reliability and not fakes. Moreover, China was allied forces during occupation of Japan. They have no reason to accuse allied forces.

Your inconsistent view make me convince what original rule is on going here.--Syngmung (talk) 02:35, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

• Well, I'll admit that I'd be skeptical of almost any anonymous, unreferenced Chinese government source about Japan. But in this case, the source isn't even journalism. It's an editorial. It begins with inflammatory claims and ends with the lines "Not only has a half-century passed without the Japanese government paying any compensation to these comfort women, in order to protect the dignity of the Yamato people they won't even acknowledge these facts. Is forgetfulness the shortcut that a 'superior' people chooses to maintain their glory?" There's no way this can be considered a reputable source.
• The academic source referenced in the article gives infection rates of about 25% overall and 50% in some individual units. The CIIC claims over 90% infection of occupation soldiers and prostitutes. That's a massive contradiction (and very difficult to believe).
• American and China don't have the same relationship today that they did in WW2. But that doesn't matter, since the target of the editorial is the Japanese government, not the Allies.

I believe that my edits have been in line with WP:HISTRS. But you should feel free to WP:RFC. Cckerberos (talk) 06:00, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Hashimoto's statement

I'm removing the recently added section on Hashimoto's recent statement about US military personnel in Japan and prostitution. It just doesn't seem to have anything to do with the long-gone RAA other than a similar "sex and soldiers" theme. If he was suggesting the establishment of a similar system that would be one thing, but Hashimoto just said that US soldiers should be allowed to use the already existing sexual establishments. As such, the United States Forces Japan page seems like a better place for it. Also, the first quote listed is in reference to Japanese troops in WW2, not US soldiers. Cckerberos (talk) 11:54, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Agreed - he obviously wasn't calling for the resurrection of this institution. Nick-D (talk) 11:58, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

 Comment: It always helps to put things in context, so that the reader can make a more educated assessment of what it was. We should not be hidden related contents.--Syngmung (talk) 12:27, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

"Comfort woman system" vs. "prostitution system"

I saw the recent edit/reversion by Binksternet and Oda Mari. I think the original language is preferable but thought it better to write out my rationale here rather than try to put it into the edit summary. First, I'm inclined towards the original language because it is a direct quote from Konoe. Second, "prostitution system" is ambiguous as there was already an officially sanctioned prostitution system in Japan at the time. Something like "a specialized prostitution system for Allied personnel" would be better. Cckerberos (talk) 21:35, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Yes. See Toshiyuki Tanaka (2002). "6. Japanese comfort women for the Allied occupation forces". Japan's Comfort Women: Sexual Slavery and Prostitution During World War II and the US Occupation. Psychology Press. pp. 133–166. ISBN 978-0-415-19400-6. {{cite book}}: External link in |chapterurl= (help); Unknown parameter |chapterurl= ignored (|chapter-url= suggested) (help) I think that it is WP:OR ("analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position not advanced by the sources") to obscure and deny the use of the term "Comfort Women" in this regard. It is not WP:NPOV. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 23:53, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Concur. We should use the terms used in reliable sources. Instead, we should have some language that clarifies that this use of "comfort women" is different than literature which covers the comfort women in imperial japan. But whitewashing language? no.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 00:22, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

We already have a section discussing the use of the term. --Cckerberos (talk) 18:03, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

See this edit and other edits by Binksternet too. I restored the stable version, but he restored his edits. The image of a Korean newspaper article uses 慰安婦/comfort women, but he replaced it with prostitutes. I think what he did is OR. See WP:TRANSCRIPTION. It seems to me that he wanted to tell readers US soldiers had nothing to do with comfort women but prostitutes and they were innocent by replacing the word comfort women with prostitution/prostitutes. That is why I used the word "whitewashing". Oda Mari (talk) 17:55, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I also found another source which details the payment systems for the comfort women in imperial japan. This prostitute/prostitution categories are appropriate there too, though forced prostitution is a more apt description. binksternet seems to want to draw a sharp line between pre-war and post-war systems even though reliable sources regularly link the two together and the second was of course inspired by the first.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 18:13, 18 May 2014 (UTC)